More money promotes equal access

This academic year, the state of Michigan will pay
approximately $7,300 for each Detroit Public Schools student. This money, known
as a foundational allowance, is one of the lowest received by any public school
system in the metro area. Of this amount, 6 percent will come from a
nonhomestead tax levied on businesses and other commercial enterprises in the
city.

Just five miles north of the city’s northwest boundary is
Birmingham, a tony community that bustles with offices, fashionable shops, chic
restaurants and clubs. Birmingham’s school district is frequently praised as one
of the finest in the state, a fact that makes the city one of the most desirable
zip codes in the metro Detroit area. High school graduation rates hover at close
to 100 percent, as does the percentage of seniors who are college-bound.

Like the other public school systems in Michigan, Birmingham
automatically receives $6,700 from the state for each child it educates, but the
money that pours in from the non-homestead levy pushes the per pupil allowance
to more than $11,000. To be sure, several other schools in the area and
throughout the state receive amounts through their non-homestead levies that
significantly dwarf Detroit’s foundational allowance. But the disparities raise
a larger question: should geography or fate determine how much money is doled
out to furnish every child in this state with his or her birthright – a public
education?

Many critics are quick to lambaste educators like myself who
believe that state governments throughout this land ought to move aggressively
to bridge the disparities in public funding. The solution to the problems in
public education, they argue, is not more money.

I couldn’t agree more.

But the critics miss the point. It’s true that there are no
conclusive studies that agree that pumping money into the education of a child
guarantees strong reading skills, graduation from high school and admission into
a reputable college. But it doesn’t take a study to prove that more funds
provide certain advantages. These advantages include stronger programs in fine
art, music, technology, reading, science and mathematics. The advantages also
include stronger extra-curricular offerings and the ability to attract talented
teachers and staff.

In recent years, the Detroit Public Schools’ precarious
financial position has made it increasingly difficult to maintain first-rate
academic programs and to recruit and retain talented teachers and
administrators. If the past is anything to go by, I don’t expect that to change
anytime soon. In the last half-century, the city has lost more than half its
population. During that same time frame, the size of the district’s student body
has shrunk by more than 50 percent.

Meanwhile, many businesses continue to join the residents in
fleeing for the suburbs. As the exodus continues, we are seeing a growth in the
number of students from low-income backgrounds and those with special needs. For
many of these students, the Detroit Public Schools is their best – and only –
hope. But unless we can come up with a way to maintain the quality of academic
programs we have offered for generations and unless we are able to continue to
attract committed, first-rate teachers we may end up giving them very limited
hope for the future.

That’s why we have teamed with many other school districts in
this state to call for an equity and adequacy study. Today, more than half a
century after the birth of the modern civil rights movement, 21st century
America still maintains what amounts to a dual education system. But unlike what
has happened throughout much of the history of this country, this system is not
based on race but on economics – and that is a shame. Our children deserve
better.

We owe it to all our children to ensure that they have equal
access to the same kinds of ultra-modern facilities, highly qualified teachers
and programs that both educate and enlighten their peers from affluent
communities like Birmingham. A public educational system that is too heavily
weighted on property taxes fails to look out for all children.

This is not an isolated view. Across the state and throughout
this country more and more people have been agitating for a system that provides
a more reasonable way of funding the education of our children. There have been
court battles in a long list of states, including Ohio, Kentucky, Maryland and
New York. All over the United States, there is much talk about coming up with a
more fair, more equitable way to pay for the education of our children.

The evidence suggests that the momentum will only continue to
build. The U.S. Constitution gives states the right to decide how to fund public
education. That right gives states broad discretion. The state’s top elected
officials could step in to address this issue. It would be an audacious step,
but it would be in the best interests of the children.

It would also be in the best interest of our state and our
country. The United States cannot continue to maintain its competitive edge as
the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation as long as it maintains a
two-tier public education system.

As a nation’s public school system goes, so goes the nation.
No modern nation has reached its apogee without a first-rate educational system.
The leaders of India, the land with the world’s second fastest growing economy,
realize this. For years, public education there was in a shambles, and for years
it mattered little to many in the affluent and middle classes; they simply sent
their children to private schools. But as India tries to enter the exclusive
club of the world’s wealthy and powerful nations, its rulers recognize that they
must shape up their educational system.

The same lesson applies to Michigan. In order to drive more
of our students toward higher education, in order to stamp out illiteracy and in
order to make the state a fertile arena for industry and development, we must
have a sound public education system. That will not happen until we start
educating all our children equally.